40 CFR 63.342 - Standards.

Beta! The text on the eCFR tab represents the unofficial eCFR text at ecfr.gov.

§ 63.342 Standards.

(a)

(1) At all times, each owner or operator must operate and maintain any affected source subject to the requirements of this subpart, including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require the owner or operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by this standard have been achieved. Determination of whether such operation and maintenance procedures are being used will be based on information available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source.

(2) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to the provisions of this subpart shall comply with these requirements in this section on and after the compliance dates specified in § 63.343(a). All affected sources are regulated by applying maximum achievable control technology.

(b)Applicability of emission limitations.

(1) The emission limitations in this section apply during tank operation as defined in § 63.341, and during periods of startup and shutdown as these are routine occurrences for affected sources subject to this subpart. In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth in this subpart, the owner or operator may assert a defense to a claim for civil penalties for violations of such standards that are caused by a malfunction, as defined in 40 CFR 63.2. Appropriate penalties may be assessed, however, if the owner or operator fails to meet the burden of proving all the requirements in the affirmative defense. The affirmative defense shall not be available for claims for injunctive relief.

(i) To establish the affirmative defense in any action to enforce such a standard, the owner or operator must timely meet the reporting requirements of paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, and must prove by a preponderance of evidence that:

(A) The violation was caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of air pollution control equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal and usual manner; and could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper design or better operation and maintenance practices; and did not stem from any activity or event that could have been foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and was not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance; and

(B) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when exceeded violation occurred. Off-shift and overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to make these repairs; and

(C) The frequency, amount and duration of the violation (including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable; and

(D) If the violation resulted from a bypass of control equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property damage; and

(E) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the violation on ambient air quality, the environment, and human health; and

(F) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in operation if at all possible, consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices; and

(G) All of the actions in response to the violation were documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and

(H) At all times, the affected sources were operated in a manner consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions; and

(I) A written root cause analysis was prepared, the purpose of which is to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary causes of the malfunction and the excess emissions resulting from the malfunction event at issue. The analysis shall also specify, using the best monitoring methods and engineering judgment, the amount of excess emissions that were the result of the malfunction.

(ii)Report. The owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative defense shall submit a written report to the Administrator with all necessary supporting documentation, that it has met the requirements set forth in paragraph (i) of this section. This affirmative defense report shall be included in the first periodic compliance, deviation report or excess emission report otherwise required after the initial occurrence of the violation of the relevant standard (which may be the end of any applicable averaging period). If such compliance, deviation report or excess emission report is due less than 45 days after the initial occurrence of the violation, the affirmation defense report may be included in the second compliance, deviation report or excess emission report due after the initial occurrence of the violation of the relevant standard.

(2) If an owner or operator is controlling a group of tanks with a common add-on air pollution control device, the emission limitations of paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this section apply whenever any one affected source is operated. The emission limitation that applies to the group of affected sources is:

(i) The emission limitation identified in paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this section if the affected sources are performing the same type of operation (e.g., hard chromium electroplating), are subject to the same emission limitation, and are not controlled by an add-on air pollution control device also controlling nonaffected sources;

(ii) The emission limitation calculated according to § 63.344(e)(3) if affected sources are performing the same type of operation, are subject to the same emission limitation, and are controlled with an add-on air pollution control device that is also controlling nonaffected sources; and

(iii) The emission limitation calculated according to § 63.344(e)(4) if affected sources are performing different types of operations, or affected sources are performing the same operations but subject to different emission limitations, and are controlled with an add-on air pollution control device that may also be controlling emissions from nonaffected sources.

(c)

(1)Standards for open surface hard chromium electroplating tanks. During tank operation, each owner or operator of an existing, new, or reconstructed affected source shall control chromium emissions discharged to the atmosphere from that affected source by either:

(i) Not allowing the concentration of total chromium in the exhaust gas stream discharged to the atmosphere to exceed 0.011 milligrams of total chromium per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) of ventilation air (4.8 × 10−6 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf)) for all open surface hard chromium electroplating tanks that are existing affected sources and are located at large hard chromium electroplating facilities; or

(ii) Not allowing the concentration of total chromium in the exhaust gas stream discharged to the atmosphere to exceed 0.015 mg/dscm (6.6 × 10−6 gr/dscf) for all open surface hard chromium electroplating tanks that are existing affected sources and are located at small, hard chromium electroplating facilities; or

(iii) If a chemical fume suppressant containing a wetting agent is used, not allowing the surface tension of the electroplating or anodizing bath contained within the affected tank to exceed 40 dynes per centimeter (dynes/cm) (2.8 × 10−3 pound-force per foot (lbf/ft)), as measured by a stalagmometer, or 33 dynes/cm (2.3 × 10−3 lbf/ft), as measured by a tensiometer at any time during tank operation; or

(iv) Not allowing the concentration of total chromium in the exhaust gas stream discharged to the atmosphere to exceed 0.006 mg/dscm of ventilation air (2.6 × 10−6 gr/dscf) for all open surface hard chromium electroplating tanks that are new affected sources; or

(v) After September 21, 2015, the owner or operator of an affected open surface hard chromium electroplating tank shall not add PFOS-based fume suppressants to any affected open surface hard chromium electroplating tank.

(2)Standards for enclosed hard chromium electroplating tanks. During tank operation, each owner or operator of an existing, new, or reconstructed affected source shall control chromium emissions discharged to the atmosphere from that affected source by either:

(i) Not allowing the concentration of total chromium in the exhaust gas stream discharged to the atmosphere to exceed 0.011 mg/dscm of ventilation air (4.8 × 10−6 gr/dscf) for all enclosed hard chromium electroplating tanks that are existing affected sources and are located at large hard chromium electroplating facilities; or

(ii) Not allowing the concentration of total chromium in the exhaust gas stream discharged to the atmosphere to exceed 0.015 mg/dscm (6.6 × 10−6 gr/dscf) for all enclosed hard chromium electroplating tanks that are existing affected sources and are located at small, hard chromium electroplating facilities; or

(iii) If a chemical fume suppressant containing a wetting agent is used, not allowing the surface tension of the electroplating or anodizing bath contained within the affected tank to exceed 40 dynes/cm (2.8 × 10−3 lbf/ft), as measured by a stalagmometer, or 33 dynes/cm (2.3 × 10−3 lbf/ft), as measured by a tensiometer at any time during tank operation; or

(iv) Not allowing the mass rate of total chromium in the exhaust gas stream discharged to the atmosphere to exceed the maximum allowable mass emission rate determined by using the calculation procedure in § 63.344(f)(1)(i) for all enclosed hard chromium electroplating tanks that are existing affected sources and are located at large hard chromium electroplating facilities; or

(v) Not allowing the mass rate of total chromium in the exhaust gas stream discharged to the atmosphere to exceed the maximum allowable mass emission rate determined by using the calculation procedure in § 63.344(f)(1)(ii) if the enclosed hard chromium electroplating tank is an existing affected source and is located at a small, hard chromium electroplating facility.

(vi) Not allowing the concentration of total chromium in the exhaust gas stream discharged to the atmosphere to exceed 0.006 mg/dscm of ventilation air (2.6 × 10−6 gr/dscf) for all enclosed hard chromium electroplating tanks that are new affected sources; or

(vii) Not allowing the mass rate of total chromium in the exhaust gas stream discharged to the atmosphere to exceed the maximum allowable mass emission rate determined by using the calculation procedure in § 63.344(f)(1)(iii) if the enclosed hard chromium electroplating tank is a new affected source.

(i) An owner or operator may demonstrate the size of a hard chromium electroplating facility through the definitions in § 63.341(a). Alternatively, an owner or operator of a facility with a maximum cumulative potential rectifier capacity of 60 million amp-hr/yr or more may be considered small if the actual cumulative rectifier capacity is less than 60 million amp-hr/yr as demonstrated using the following procedures:

(A) If records show that the facility's previous annual actual rectifier capacity was less than 60 million amp-hr/yr, by using nonresettable ampere-hr meters and keeping monthly records of actual ampere-hr usage for each 12-month rolling period following the compliance date in accordance with § 63.346(b)(12). The actual cumulative rectifier capacity for the previous 12-month rolling period shall be tabulated monthly by adding the capacity for the current month to the capacities for the previous 11 months; or

(B) By accepting a federally-enforceable limit on the maximum cumulative potential rectifier capacity of a hard chromium electroplating facility and by maintaining monthly records in accordance with § 63.346(b)(12) to demonstrate that the limit has not been exceeded. The actual cumulative rectifier capacity for the previous 12-month rolling period shall be tabulated monthly by adding the capacity for the current month to the capacities for the previous 11 months.

(ii) Once the monthly records required to be kept by § 63.346(b)(12) and by this paragraph (c)(3)(ii) show that the actual cumulative rectifier capacity over the previous 12-month rolling period corresponds to the large designation, the owner or operator is subject to the emission limitation identified in paragraph (c)(1)(i), (iii), (c)(2)(i), (iii), or (iv) of this section, in accordance with the compliance schedule of § 63.343(a)(5).

(d)Standards for decorative chromium electroplating tanks using a chromic acid bath and chromium anodizing tanks. During tank operation, each owner or operator of an existing, new, or reconstructed affected source shall control chromium emissions discharged to the atmosphere from that affected source by either:

(1) Not allowing the concentration of total chromium in the exhaust gas stream discharged to the atmosphere to exceed 0.007 mg/dscm (3.1 × 10−6 gr/dscf) for all existing decorative chromium electroplating tanks using a chromic acid bath and all existing chromium anodizing tanks; or

(2) Not allowing the concentration of total chromium in the exhaust gas stream discharged to the atmosphere to exceed 0.006 mg/dscm (2.6 × 10−6 gr/dscf) for all new or reconstructed decorative chromium electroplating tanks using a chromic acid bath and all new or reconstructed chromium anodizing tanks; or

(3) If a chemical fume suppressant containing a wetting agent is used, not allowing the surface tension of the electroplating or anodizing bath contained within the affected tank to exceed 40 dynes/cm (2.8 × 10−3 lbf/ft), as measured by a stalagmometer or 33 dynes/cm (2.3 × 10−3 lbf/ft), as measured by a tensiometer at any time during tank operation, for all existing, new, or reconstructed decorative chromium electroplating tanks using a chromic acid bath and all existing, new, or reconstructed chromium anodizing tanks; or

(4) After September 21, 2015, the owner or operator of an affected decorative chromium electroplating tank or an affected chromium anodizing tank shall not add PFOS-based fume suppressants to any affected decorative chromium electroplating tank or chromium anodizing tank.

(1) Each owner or operator of an existing, new, or reconstructed decorative chromium electroplating tank that uses a trivalent chromium bath that incorporates a wetting agent as a bath ingredient is subject to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of §§ 63.346(b)(14) and 63.347(i), but are not subject to the work practice requirements of paragraph (f) of this section, or the continuous compliance monitoring requirements in § 63.343(c). The wetting agent must be an ingredient in the trivalent chromium bath components purchased as a package.

(2) After September 21, 2015, the owner or operator of an affected decorative chromium electroplating tank using a trivalent chromium bath shall not add PFOS-based fume suppressants to any affected decorative chromium electroplating tank.

(3) Each owner or operator of an existing, new, or reconstructed decorative chromium electroplating tank that uses a trivalent chromium bath that does not incorporate a wetting agent as a bath ingredient is subject to the standards of paragraph (d) of this section.

(4) Each owner or operator of an existing, new, or reconstructed decorative chromium electroplating tank that had been using a trivalent chromium bath that incorporated a wetting agent and ceases using this type of bath must fulfill the reporting requirements of § 63.347(i)(3) and comply with the applicable emission limitation within the timeframe specified in § 63.343(a)(7).

(f)Operation and maintenance practices. All owners or operators subject to the standards in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section are subject to these operation and maintenance practices.

(1)

(i) At all times, including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, owners or operators shall operate and maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution control devices and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practices.

(ii) Malfunctions shall be corrected as soon as practicable after their occurrence.

(iii) Operation and maintenance requirements established pursuant to section 112 of the Act are enforceable independent of emissions limitations or other requirements in relevant standards.

(2)

(i) Determination of whether acceptable operation and maintenance procedures are being used will be based on information available to the Administrator, which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results; review of the operation and maintenance plan, procedures, and records; and inspection of the source.

(ii) Based on the results of a determination made under paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section, the Administrator may require that an owner or operator of an affected source make changes to the operation and maintenance plan required by paragraph (f)(3) of this section for that source. Revisions may be required if the Administrator finds that the plan:

(A) Does not address a malfunction that has occurred;

(B) Fails to provide for the proper operation of the affected source, the air pollution control techniques, or the control system and process monitoring equipment during a malfunction in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practices; or

(C) Does not provide adequate procedures for correcting malfunctioning process equipment, air pollution control techniques, or monitoring equipment as quickly as practicable.

(3)Operation and maintenance plan.

(i) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to paragraph (f) of this section shall prepare an operation and maintenance plan no later than the compliance date, except for hard chromium electroplaters and the chromium anodizing operations in California which have until January 25, 1998. The plan shall be incorporated by reference into the source's title V permit, if and when a title V permit is required. The plan shall include the following elements:

(A) The plan shall specify the operation and maintenance criteria for the affected source, the add-on air pollution control device (if such a device is used to comply with the emission limits), and the process and control system monitoring equipment, and shall include a standardized checklist to document the operation and maintenance of this equipment;

(B) For sources using an add-on control device or monitoring equipment to comply with this subpart, the plan shall incorporate the operation and maintenance practices for that device or monitoring equipment, as identified in Table 1 of this section, if the specific equipment used is identified in Table 1 of this section;

(C) If the specific equipment used is not identified in Table 1 of this section, the plan shall incorporate proposed operation and maintenance practices. These proposed operation and maintenance practices shall be submitted for approval as part of the submittal required under § 63.343(d);

(D) The plan shall specify procedures to be followed to ensure that equipment or process malfunctions due to poor maintenance or other preventable conditions do not occur; and

(E) The plan shall include a systematic procedure for identifying malfunctions of process equipment, add-on air pollution control devices, and process and control system monitoring equipment and for implementing corrective actions to address such malfunctions.

(F) The plan shall include housekeeping procedures, as specified in Table 2 of this section.

(ii) If the operation and maintenance plan fails to address or inadequately addresses an event that meets the characteristics of a malfunction at the time the plan is initially developed, the owner or operator shall revise the operation and maintenance plan within 45 days after such an event occurs. The revised plan shall include procedures for operating and maintaining the process equipment, add-on air pollution control device, or monitoring equipment during similar malfunction events, and a program for corrective action for such events.

(iii) Recordkeeping associated with the operation and maintenance plan is identified in § 63.346(b). Reporting associated with the operation and maintenance plan is identified in § 63.347 (g) and (h) and paragraph (f)(3)(iv) of this section.

(iv) If actions taken by the owner or operator during periods of malfunction are inconsistent with the procedures specified in the operation and maintenance plan required by paragraph (f)(3)(i) of this section, the owner or operator shall record the actions taken for that event and shall report by phone such actions within 2 working days after commencing actions inconsistent with the plan. This report shall be followed by a letter within 7 working days after the end of the event, unless the owner or operator makes alternative reporting arrangements, in advance, with the Administrator.

(v) The owner or operator shall keep the written operation and maintenance plan on record after it is developed to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator for the life of the affected source or until the source is no longer subject to the provisions of this subpart. In addition, if the operation and maintenance plan is revised, the owner or operator shall keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the operation and maintenance plan on record to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator for a period of 5 years after each revision to the plan.

(vi) To satisfy the requirements of paragraph (f)(3) of this section, the owner or operator may use applicable standard operating procedure (SOP) manuals, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) plans, or other existing plans, provided the alternative plans meet the requirements of this section.

(g) The standards in this section that apply to chromic acid baths shall not be met by using a reducing agent to change the form of chromium from hexavalent to trivalent.

Table 1 to § 63.342 - Summary of Operation and Maintenance Practices

Control technique

Operation and maintenance practices

Frequency

Composite mesh-pad (CMP) system

1. Visually inspect device to ensure there is proper drainage, no chronic acid buildup on the pads, and no evidence of chemical attack on the structural integrity of the device

1. 1/quarter.

2. Visually inspect back portion of the mesh pad closest to the fan to ensure there is no breakthrough of chromic acid mist

2. 1/quarter.

3. Visually inspect ductwork from tank to the control device to ensure there are no leaks

3. 1/quarter.

4. Perform washdown of the composite mesh-pads in accordance with manufacturers recommendations

4. Per manufacturer.

Packed-bed scrubber (PSB)

1. Visually inspect device to ensure there is proper drainage, no chromic acid buildup on the packed beds, and no evidence of chemical attack on the structural integrity of the device

1. 1/quarter.

2. Visually inspect back portion of the chevron blade mist eliminator to ensure that it is dry and there is no breakthrough of chromic acid mist

2. 1/quarter.

3. Same as number 3 above

3. 1/quarter.

4. Add fresh makeup water to the top of the packed bed
a b

4. Whenever makeup is added.

PBS/CMP system

1. Same as for CMP system

1. 1/quarter.

2. Same as for CMP system

2. 1/quarter.

3. Same as for CMP system

3. 1/quarter.

4. Same as for CMP system

4. Per manufacturer.

Fiber-bed mist eliminator
c

1. Visually inspect fiber-bed unit and prefiltering device to ensure there is proper drainage, no chromic acid buildup in the units, and no evidence of chemical attack on the structural integrity of the devices

1. 1/quarter.

2. Visually inspect ductwork from tank or tanks to the control device to ensure there are no leaks

Backflush with water, or remove from the duct and rinse with fresh water. Replace in the duct and rotate 180 degrees to ensure that the same zero reading is obtained. Check pitot tube ends for damage. Replace pitot tube if cracked or fatigued

1/quarter.

Stalagmometer

Follow manufacturers recommendations

a If greater than 50 percent of the scrubber water is drained (e.g., for maintenance purposes), makeup water may be added to the scrubber basin.

b For horizontal-flow scrubbers, top is defined as the section of the unit directly above the packing media such that the makeup water would flow perpendicular to the air flow through the packing. For vertical-flow units, the top is defined as the area downstream of the packing material such that the makeup water would flow countercurrent to the air flow through the unit.

c Work practice standards for the control device installed upstream of the fiber-bed mist eliminator to prevent plugging do not apply as long as the work practice standards for the fiber-bed unit are followed.

Table 2 to § 63.342 - Housekeeping Practices

For

You must:

At this minimum frequency

1. Any substance used in an affected chromium electroplating or chromium anodizing tank that contains hexavalent chromium

(a) Store the substance in a closed container in an enclosed storage area or building; AND
(b) Use a closed container when transporting the substance from the enclosed storage area

At all times, except when transferring the substance to and from the container.
Whenever transporting substance, except when transferring the substance to and from the container.

2. Each affected tank, to minimize spills of bath solution that result from dragout. Note: this measure does not require the return of contaminated bath solution to the tank. This requirement applies only as the parts are removed from the tank. Once away from the tank area, any spilled solution must be handled in accordance with Item 4 of these housekeeping measures

(a) Install drip trays that collect and return to the tank any bath solution that drips or drains from parts as the parts are removed from the tank; OR
(b) Contain and return to the tank any bath solution that drains or drips from parts as the parts are removed from the tank; OR
(c) Collect and treat in an onsite wastewater treatment plant any bath solution that drains or drips from parts as the parts are removed from the tank

Prior to operating the tank.
Whenever removing parts from an affected tank.
Whenever removing parts from an affected tank.

Install a splash guard to minimize overspray during spraying operations and to ensure that any hexavalent chromium laden liquid captured by the splash guard is returned to the affected chromium electroplating or anodizing tank

Prior to any such spraying operation.

4. Each operation that involves the handling or use of any substance used in an affected chromium electroplating or chromium anodizing tank that contains hexavalent chromium

Begin clean up, or otherwise contain, all spills of the substance. Note: substances that fall or flow into drip trays, pans, sumps, or other containment areas are not considered spills

(a) Clean the surfaces using one or more of the following methods: HEPA vacuuming; Hand-wiping with a damp cloth; Wet mopping; Hose down or rinse with potable water that is collected in a wastewater collection system; Other cleaning method approved by the permitting authority; OR
(b) Apply a non-toxic chemical dust suppressant to the surfaces

At least once every 7 days if one or more chromium electroplating or chromium anodizing tanks were used, or at least after every 40 hours of operating time of one or more affection chromium electroplating or chromium anodizing tank, whichever is later.
According to manufacturer's recommendations.

6. All buffing, grinding, or polishing operations that are located in the same room as chromium electroplating or chromium anodizing operations

Separate the operation from any affected electroplating or anodizing operation by installing a physical barrier; the barrier may take the form of plastic strip curtains

Prior to beginning the buffing, grinding, or polishing operation.

7. All chromium or chromium-containing wastes generated from housekeeping activities

Store, dispose, recover, or recycle the wastes using practices that do not lead to fugitive dust and in accordance with hazardous waste requirements

This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review (RTR) and the rule review the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities under the national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). In this action, we are finalizing several amendments to the NESHAP based on the review of these standards. These final amendments add limitations to reduce organic and inorganic emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from specialty coating application operations; remove exemptions for periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM) so that affected units will be subject to the emission standards at all times; and revise provisions to address recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to periods of SSM. These final amendments include a requirement to report performance testing through the EPA's Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). This action also makes clarifications to the applicability, definitions, and compliance demonstration provisions, and other technical corrections. The EPA estimates that implementation of this rule will reduce annual HAP emissions by 58 tons.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule in the Federal Register on October 26, 2015, titled NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; and NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing. These amendments make two technical corrections to the published regulation.

2015-12-01; vol. 80 # 230 - Tuesday, December 1, 2015

80 FR 75025 - Supplemental Finding That It Is Appropriate and Necessary To Regulate Hazardous Air Pollutants From Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is soliciting comment on a proposed supplemental finding that consideration of cost does not alter the agency's previous conclusion that it is appropriate and necessary to regulate coal- and oil-fired electric utility steam generating units (EGUs) under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). In light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Michigan v. EPA, 135 S.Ct. 2699 (2015), the EPA has taken cost into account in evaluating whether such regulation is appropriate. In this document, the EPA sets forth its proposed supplemental finding and requests comment on all aspects of that finding and the supporting legal memorandum in the docket for this action. This proposed supplemental finding, if finalized after consideration of comments, will conclude that coal- and oil-fired EGUs are properly included on the CAA section 112(c) list of sources that must be regulated under CAA section 112(d).

This final action is effective on February 1, 2016. The incorporation by reference of certain publications for part 63 listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of February 1, 2016. The incorporation by reference of certain publications for part 60 listed in the rule were approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of June 24, 2008.

40 CFR Part 60

Summary

This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review conducted for the Petroleum Refinery source categories regulated under national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) Refinery MACT 1 and Refinery MACT 2. It also includes revisions to the Refinery MACT 1 and MACT 2 rules in accordance with provisions regarding establishment of MACT standards. This action also finalizes technical corrections and clarifications for the new source performance standards (NSPS) for petroleum refineries to improve consistency and clarity and address issues related to a 2008 industry petition for reconsideration. Implementation of this final rule will result in projected reductions of 5,200 tons per year (tpy) of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) which will reduce cancer risk and chronic health effects.

This action requests information related to hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from sources in the oil and natural gas production and natural gas transmission and storage segments of the oil and natural gas sector. In 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revised the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Oil and Natural Gas Production Facilities and the Natural Gas Transmission and Storage Facilities major source categories. This action requests additional data and information that was not available at that time. In particular, we are requesting data on storage vessels without potential flash emissions (PFE) and data on HAP emissions from regulated small glycol dehydrators. With regard to the small glycol dehydrators we are particularly interested in data regarding any emissions of HAP other than benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX), information on available control options for any such HAP and information regarding a potential compliance demonstration issue with respect to the 2012 standards for small glycol dehydration units, as they apply to units with very low emissions.

2015-11-20; vol. 80 # 224 - Friday, November 20, 2015

80 FR 72790 - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters

This action sets forth the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) final decision on the issues for which it granted reconsideration on January 21, 2015, that pertain to certain aspects of the January 31, 2013, final amendments to the “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters” (Boiler MACT). The EPA is retaining a minimum carbon monoxide (CO) limit of 130 parts per million (ppm) and the particulate matter (PM) continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) requirements, consistent with the January 2013 final rule. The EPA is making minor changes to the proposed definitions of startup and shutdown and work practices during these periods, based on public comments received. Among other things, this final action addresses a number of technical corrections and clarifications of the rule. These corrections will clarify and improve the implementation of the January 2013 final Boiler MACT, but do not have any effect on the environmental, energy, or economic impacts associated with the proposed action. This action also includes our final decision to deny the requests for reconsideration with respect to all issues raised in the petitions for reconsideration of the final Boiler MACT for which we did not grant reconsideration.

This action is effective on December 28, 2015. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of December 28, 2015.

40 CFR Part 63

Summary

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for Brick and Structural Clay Products (BSCP) Manufacturing and NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing. All major sources in these categories must meet maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for mercury (Hg), non-mercury (non-Hg) metal hazardous air pollutants (HAP) (or particulate matter (PM) surrogate) and dioxins/furans (Clay Ceramics only); health-based standards for acid gas HAP; and work practice standards, where applicable. The final rule, which has been informed by input from industry (including small businesses), environmental groups, and other stakeholders, protects air quality and promotes public health by reducing emissions of HAP listed in section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

This final action is effective on October 15, 2015. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of October 15, 2015.

40 CFR Part 63

Summary

This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review (RTR) conducted for the Primary Aluminum Production source category regulated under national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). In addition, we are taking final action regarding new and revised emission standards for various hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted by this source category based on the RTR, newly obtained emissions test data, and comments we received in response to the 2011 proposal and 2014 supplemental proposal. These final amendments include technology-based standards and work practice standards reflecting performance of maximum achievable control technology (MACT), and related monitoring, reporting, and testing requirements, for several previously unregulated HAP from various emissions sources. Furthermore, based on our risk review, we are finalizing new and revised emission standards for certain HAP emissions from potlines using the Soderberg technology to address risk. We are also adding a requirement for electronic reporting of compliance data, eliminating the exemptions for periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunctions (SSM), and not adopting the affirmative defense provisions proposed in 2011, consistent with a recent court decision vacating the affirmative defense provisions. This action will provide improved environmental protection regarding potential emissions of HAP emissions from primary aluminum reduction facilities.

Comments on the proposed rule published September 8, 2015 (80 FR 54146) must be received on or before December 9, 2015.

40 CFR Parts 51, 60, 61, and 63

Summary

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is extending the comment period for the proposed rule titled, “Revisions to Test Methods, Performance Specifications, and Testing Regulations for Air Emission Sources,” that was published in the Federal Register on September 8, 2015. The 60-day comment period in the proposed rule is scheduled to end on November 9, 2015. The extended comment period will close on December 9, 2015. The EPA recently added a technical justification to the docket for the revision in the proposed rule regarding Subpart JJJJ of Part 60 (Standards of Performance for Stationary Spark Ignition Internal Combustion Engines). We also added background information to support our reasoning for soliciting comment about Method 7E stratification. Therefore, the EPA is extending the comment period to allow the public additional time to submit comments and supporting information on these and other aspects of the proposed rule.

The public hearing will be held on October 8, 2015, in Research Triangle Park. Please refer to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for additional information on the public hearing.

Summary

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a public hearing for the proposed rule titled, “Revisions to Test Methods, Performance Specifications, and Testing Regulations for Air Emission Sources,” that was published in the Federal Register on September 8, 2015. The hearing will be held in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. The EPA is proposing technical and editorial corrections and revisions to regulations related to source testing of emissions. The EPA is proposing to make corrections and updates to testing provisions that contain inaccuracies and outdated procedures, and to provide alternatives to existing testing regulations. The revisions will improve the quality of data and provide testers flexibility to use recently-approved alternative procedures. Many of the changes were suggested by testers and other end-users and will not impose new substantive requirements on source owners or operators.

2015-09-18; vol. 80 # 181 - Friday, September 18, 2015

80 FR 56700 - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Secondary Aluminum Production

Effective date: This final action is effective on September 18, 2015. Compliance dates: The compliance date for the final amendments listed in 40 CFR 63.1501(b) for existing secondary aluminum production affected sources is March 16, 2016. The compliance date for the final amendments listed in 40 CFR 63.1501(c) for existing affected sources is September 18, 2017. The owner or operator of a new affected source that commences construction or reconstruction after February 14, 2012, must comply with all of the requirements listed in 40 CFR 63.1501(b) and (c) by September 18, 2015 or upon startup, whichever is later. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of September 18, 2015.

40 CFR Part 63

Summary

This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review (RTR), and the rule review, we conducted for the Secondary Aluminum Production source category regulated under national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). In this action, we are finalizing several amendments to the NESHAP based on the rule review. These final amendments include a requirement to report performance testing through the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT); provisions allowing owners and operators to change furnace classifications; requirements to account for unmeasured emissions during compliance testing for group 1 furnaces that do not have add-on control devices; alternative compliance options for the operating and monitoring requirements for sweat furnaces; compliance provisions for hydrogen fluoride; provisions addressing emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM); and other corrections and clarifications to the applicability, definitions, operating, monitoring and performance testing requirements. These amendments will improve the monitoring, compliance and implementation of the rule.

2015-09-11; vol. 80 # 176 - Friday, September 11, 2015

80 FR 54728 - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants; Correction

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule in the Federal Register on July 27, 2015, titled National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants. This final rule makes technical corrections and clarifications to the regulations published in that final rule. The rule also includes a provision describing performance testing requirements when a source demonstrates compliance with the hydrochloric acid (HCl) emissions standard using a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) for sulfur dioxide measurement and reporting.

Comments must be received on or before November 9, 2015. Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by September 18, 2015 requesting to speak at a public hearing, a hearing will be held on October 8, 2015.

40 CFR Parts 51, 60, 61, and 63

Summary

This action proposes technical and editorial corrections and revisions to regulations related to source testing of emissions. This proposed rule will make corrections and updates to testing provisions that contain inaccuracies and outdated procedures, and provide alternatives to existing testing regulations. These revisions will improve the quality of data and provide testers flexibility to use recently-approved alternative procedures. Many of these changes were suggested by testers and other end-users, and they will not impose new substantive requirements on source owners or operators.

2015-08-31; vol. 80 # 168 - Monday, August 31, 2015

80 FR 52426 - Notice of Final Approval for the Operation of Pressure-Assisted Multi-Point Ground Flares at The Dow Chemical Company and ExxonMobil Chemical Company and Notice of Receipt of Approval Request for the Operation of a Pressure-Assisted Multi-Point Ground Flare at Occidental Chemical Corporation

The AMEL for the MPGF at Dow's Propane Dehydrogenation Plant and Light Hydrocarbons Plant located at its Texas Operations site in Freeport, Texas, and ExxonMobil's Olefins Plant in Baytown, Texas, and Plastics Plant in Mont Belvieu, Texas are approved and effective August 31, 2015. Comments. Written comments on the AMEL request from OCC for their MPGF in Ingleside, Texas, or on the framework for streamlining future MPGF AMEL requests must be received on or before October 15, 2015. Public Hearing. Regarding the OCC MPGF in Ingleside, Texas, or the framework for streamlining future MPGF AMEL requests, if requested by September 8, 2015, we will hold a public hearing on September 15, 2015, from 1:00 p.m. [Eastern Standard Time] to 8:00 p.m. [Eastern Standard Time] in Corpus Christi, Texas. We will provide details on the public hearing on our Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/groundflares/groundflarespg.html. To be clear, a public hearing will not be held unless someone specifically requests that the EPA hold a public hearing regarding the OCC MPGF or the framework for streamlining future MPGF AMEL requests. Please contact Ms. Virginia Hunt of the Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-0832; email address: hunt.virginia@epa.gov; to request a public hearing, to register to speak at the public hearing or to inquire as to whether a public hearing will be held. The last day to pre-register in advance to speak at the public hearing will be September 14, 2015.

40 CFR Parts 60, 61 and 63

Summary

This notice announces our approval of the Alternative Means of Emission Limitation (AMEL) requests for the operation of multi-point ground flares (MPGF) at The Dow Chemical Company's (Dow) Propane Dehydrogenation Plant and Light Hydrocarbons Plant located at its Texas Operations site in Freeport, Texas, and the ExxonMobil Chemical Company (ExxonMobil) Olefins Plant in Baytown, Texas, and its Plastics Plant in Mont Belvieu, Texas. This approval notice also specifies the operating conditions and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for demonstrating compliance with the AMEL that these facilities must follow. In addition, this notice solicits comments on an all aspects of an AMEL request from Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC) in which long-term MPGF burner stability and destruction efficiency have been demonstrated on different pressure-assisted MPGF burners that OCC has proposed for use in controlling emissions at its Ingleside, Texas, ethylene plant. Lastly, this notice presents and solicits comments on all aspects of a framework of both MPGF burner testing and rule-specific emissions control equivalency demonstrations that we anticipate, when followed, would afford us the ability to approve future AMEL requests for MPGF in a more efficient and streamlined manner.

This final action is effective on August 19, 2015. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of August 19, 2015.

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

Summary

This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review conducted for the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer Production source categories regulated under national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). In addition, this action finalizes an 8-year review of the current new source performance standards (NSPS) for five source categories. We are also taking final action addressing Clean Air Act (CAA) provisions related to emission standards for hazardous air pollutants, review and revision of emission standards, and work practice standards. The final amendments to the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing NESHAP include: Numeric emission limits for previously unregulated mercury (Hg) and total fluoride emissions from calciners; work practice standards for hydrogen fluoride (HF) emissions from previously unregulated gypsum dewatering stacks and cooling ponds; clarifications to the applicability and monitoring requirements to accommodate process equipment and technology changes; removal of the exemptions for startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM); adoption of work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown; and revised recordkeeping and reporting requirements for periods of SSM. The final amendments to the Phosphate Fertilizer Production NESHAP include: Clarifications to the applicability and monitoring requirements to accommodate process equipment and technology changes; removal of the exemptions for SSM; adoption of work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown; and revised recordkeeping and reporting requirements for periods of SSM. The revised NESHAP for Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing facilities will mitigate future increases of Hg emissions from phosphate rock calciners by requiring pollution prevention measures. Further, based on the 8-year review of the current NSPS for these source categories, the EPA determined that no revisions to the numeric emission limits in those rules are warranted.

2015-07-29; vol. 80 # 145 - Wednesday, July 29, 2015

80 FR 45280 - National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing

This action finalizes the residual risk and technology reviews (RTR) conducted for the Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source categories regulated under national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). Under this action, we are establishing pollutant-specific emissions limits for hazardous air pollutants (HAP) that were previously regulated (under a surrogate) and for HAP that were previously unregulated. This action finalizes first-time generally available control technologies (GACT) standards for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities that are area sources. We are also amending regulatory provisions related to emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM); adding requirements for reporting of performance testing through the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT); and making several minor clarifications and corrections. The revisions in these final rules increase the level of emissions control and environmental protection provided by the Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP.

2015-07-27; vol. 80 # 143 - Monday, July 27, 2015

80 FR 44772 - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants

This action finalizes amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants. On February 12, 2013, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized amendments to the NESHAP and the new source performance standards (NSPS) for the Portland cement industry. Subsequently, the EPA became aware of certain minor technical errors in those amendments, and thus issued a proposal to correct these errors on November 19, 2014 (79 FR 68821). The EPA received 3 comments on the proposal. In response to the comments received and to complete technical corrections, the EPA is now issuing final amendments. In addition, consistent with the U.S. Court of Appeals to the DC Circuit's vacatur of the affirmative defense provisions in the final rule, this action removes those provisions. These amendments do not affect the pollution reduction or costs associated with these standards.